drivers: display: ssd16xx: Add support for the ssd1677 EPD driver chip

[nisargjhaveri]

Add support for the SSD1677 EPD driver chip with support for up to 960x680 pixel displays.

Tested with the Waveshare 4.26" 800x480 display with XIAO BLE board. I believe it is the same as Good Display GDEQ0426T82. Tested with the samples/drivers/display sample.

The SSD1677 requires x address to be full address, instead of the byte address used by SSD16XX. Added a new quirk to handle this.

The display requires a different GDO control flag as the panel layout might be different, add an option to set this.

The display also requires the scan direction for y axis to be reversed, add an option to set this as well.

Example devicetree overlay for the display:

&spi2 {
    cs-gpios = <&gpio0 3 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
};

/ {
    chosen {
        zephyr,display = &ssd1677;
    };

    mipi_dbi {
        compatible = "zephyr,mipi-dbi-spi";
        spi-dev = <&spi2>;
        dc-gpios = <&gpio0 29 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
        reset-gpios = <&gpio0 2 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
        #address-cells = <1>;
        #size-cells = <0>;

        ssd1677: ssd1677@0 {
            compatible = "solomon,ssd1677";
            mipi-max-frequency = <4000000>;
            reg = <0>;
            busy-gpios = <&gpio0 5 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;

            width = <480>;
            height = <800>;

            tssv = <0x80>;
            softstart = [AE C7 C3 C0 80];
            gdo-flags = <0x02>;
            scan-y-reverse;

            full {
                border-waveform = <0x01>;
            };

            partial {
                border-waveform = <0x80>;
            };
        };
    };
};

[github-actions]

Hello @nisargjhaveri, and thank you very much for your first pull request to the Zephyr project!
Our Continuous Integration pipeline will execute a series of checks on your Pull Request commit messages and code, and you are expected to address any failures by updating the PR. Please take a look at our commit message guidelines to find out how to format your commit messages, and at our contribution workflow to understand how to update your Pull Request. If you haven't already, please make sure to review the project's Contributor Expectations and update (by amending and force-pushing the commits) your pull request if necessary.
If you are stuck or need help please join us on Discord and ask your question there. Additionally, you can escalate the review when applicable. 😊

[danieldegrasse]

Change itself looks ok to me- one formatting nit, and please address the errors highlighted by the compliance script. You should be able to see the specific lines in the Github UI when looking at the PR diff

[danieldegrasse]

Please do not add additional "fixup" commits to address reviewer requests- squash the commits making changes requested by reviewers back into your original commit, and force push over the PR branch. If you'd like to run clang format on the PR to silence those CI warnings that is ok, but please do so in a separate commit from where you have functional changes (it seems you already did this, just want to make sure it is clear this change should not be squashed into the commit adding functionality)

[nisargjhaveri]

@danieldegrasse Thanks for the suggestions. I've rebased and force pushed the commits.

[danieldegrasse]

You'll need a commit body in both commits, that is going to fail the CI checks currently

[nisargjhaveri]

@danieldegrasse Updated again. Sorry for the troubles. Hope it makes sense this time? :)

[Snevzor]

Dropping my review as I don't think I can add any value here. My initial comment was answered and all is clear to me.

[nisargjhaveri]

@danieldegrasse Could you have another look? I had to push more minor changes to fix the CI checks.

[danieldegrasse]

@danieldegrasse Could you have another look? I had to push more minor changes to fix the CI checks.

Looks like there is still an issue. You can run this check locally (on a Linux system) with ./scripts/ci/check_compliance.py, provided you install the python dependencies in scripts/requirements-compliance.txt

[nisargjhaveri]

Thanks for that! I pushed again, and it passes the failing check (gitlint) locally.

[nisargjhaveri]

Hi, @danieldegrasse. Is there anything else pending from my end? What needs to be done to merge this PR if it looks good?

[danieldegrasse]

Thanks for the ping, LGTM

[nisargjhaveri]

@galak, @jfischer-no, could you please have a look as well? Let me know if this needs any more changes?

[jfischer-no]

@andysan Could you please take a look?

[andysan]

@andysan Could you please take a look?

I will, but it'll be a couple of days. I can't promise I'll be able to find time before the weekend.